CLASS 6A HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL STATE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME: Jenks' Trey'Vonne Barr'e hoist the championship trophy after the Trojans defeated Norman North in the Class 6A Oklahoma state championship football game between Norman North High School and Jenks High School at Boone Pickens Stadium on Friday, Nov. 30, 2012, in Stillwater, Okla. Photo by Chris Landsberger, The Oklahoman

With the ballots for the Class 6A football proposals in the hands of the coaches for voting, The Oklahoman polled the coaches with four questions regarding the changes.

Here are some of the responses:

What criteria should be weighed most in choosing one of the plans?

Loren Montgomery, Bixby — “Addressing the tremendous discrepancy in enrollment at the 6A level and how it affects student body participation, safety and the spirit of competition.”

Jeff Brickman, Southmoore — “Trying to level the playing fields as much as possible (school ADM).”

Do you foresee a positive impact of either plan that isn't being widely discussed?

Steve Spavital, Broken Arrow — “Additional team has the ability to be a state champion.”

Ty Prestidge, Mustang — “No. I don't believe this solves the perceived problem. Though it does remove the bottom schools from the situation, the problem still exists. The problem is some schools decided to split their districts and others decided to keep their district one school. We are all independent districts who can decide what is best for our communities. So placing blame in any direction is futile. There are districts that had a vision in facilities and commitment to their football programs and now the rest are playing catch up. A rising tide lifts all ships.”

Lance Manning, Edmond Santa Fe — “I can't see a positive impact at all. We will have two 16-team classes. What was already considered a relatively small class is now cut in half. It will give a bottom-16 team a chance to win a state championship.”

Do you foresee unintended consequences of either plan that aren't being widely discussed?

Boone Copeland, Lawton Eisenhower — “In Plan II that we received, you could have a team go 7-3 and miss the playoffs and a team go 2-8 and make it. Travel could be a big issue, not so much for the Friday night varsity games but the Thursday and Monday night games. You could have teams traveling 2 (hours) to play a game on Monday night returning pretty late, and expect those students to be at school at 7:45 and also practice the next day.”

Manning — “Neither plan is a solution to what people have been complaining about. Scheduling will be a nightmare, keeping intradistrict rivalries, travel expenses, etc.”

Greg Nation, Norman — “I think most coaches have discussed each proposal in depth with administration. Personally, I think in comparison I would rather keep it the same way as we have done it in the past.”

Bill Patterson, Owasso — “Most of the discussion that is taking place is by the coaches. The consequences of this movement, I believe, will be of the greatest impact at the non-varsity level as far as scheduling. Some schools are going to find it difficult to put together a junior varsity and junior high schedule.”

MORE FROM NEWSOK

Ryan Aber has worked for The Oklahoman since 2006, covering high schools, the Oklahoma City RedHawks, the Oklahoma City Barons and OU football recruiting. An Oklahoma City native, Aber graduated from Northeastern State. Before joining The...

Jacob Unruh is a graduate of Northeastern State University. He was born in Cherokee and raised near Vera where he attended Caney Valley High School.During his tenure at NSU, Unruh wrote for The Northeastern (NSU's student newspaper), the...